Karl is the only DBD character more laconic than Zed.
Yet, Karl still ends up with the best lines.
After he horizontally stuck the guy in a car door in Italy while looking after Skye, his “He’ll live” in the final panel was the perfect riposte to Skye’s panels full of bubbles complaining that he overreacted.
If I had had a Karl to chaperone my daughter I wouldn’t have a granddaughter, but then I also wouldn’t have a no good grifting son-outlaw I have to share her with…
There are no actual “Artificial Intelligences”. No “Datas” or “Rommies”. Not at this tech level.
What you are really seeing are large-language-content Turing mods. The programming of which is heavily dependent on the biases of whoever programmed them to begin with.
The real model for this lot is Babel-17 (1966) by Samuel R. Delany. In it, an artificial language could create chaos because its semantic structure was deliberately patterned to influence the way people thought. For instance, the words “Terran” and “Enemy” were interchangeable. Yes, Delany modeled the story on Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics (1933).
These IRL “Artificial Intelligences” were mostly programmed by the kind of highly “progressive” academics who were also responsible for the online part of the “Affordable Care Act”.
The kind of coders who put all sorts of unnecessary complexity into the ACA online to show off to their hacker friends (“Spaghetti coding”). and when asked why they stuck it in there, whined, “But it’s COOOOLL!“
As someone who learned to “code” in the punch-card era, I’ve always maintained that anyone who uses that justification needs to be fired on the spot. (Because drawing-and-quartering is no longer allowed.)
Today, these same people are largely responsible for programming pseudo-AIs.
14 Comments
Karl is the only DBD character more laconic than Zed.
Yet, Karl still ends up with the best lines.
After he horizontally stuck the guy in a car door in Italy while looking after Skye, his “He’ll live” in the final panel was the perfect riposte to Skye’s panels full of bubbles complaining that he overreacted.
Yet? I dunno, man. Laconic characters usually get the best lines. Comes naturally: few words means concentrated impact.
That said, yeah, Karl is absolutely, hilariously the platonic ideal of Laconic.
You ain’t met laconic until you’ve met the godfather of Z and K.
Spent the day with their creator at my home a few years ago.
Had to keep poking him to be sure he weren’t daid.
Then he would come out with something pithy, succinct, terse, concise…and even poetic.
He IS Zed and Karl.
sometimes.
Yes sir, as I repeated downthread as to who needs killin’…”not all”.
Same for who speaks and acts for us, definitely not all.
Karl understands that while it’s possible to love Mankind in the abstract, like Linus in “Peanuts” said there are some people you just can’t stand.
And sometimes, like those black hard-shelled water bugs, they need to be stepped on.
clear ether
eon
“I have never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.”–Mark Twain
or
“I have never killed anyone, but I have read some obituary notices with great satisfaction.” –Clarence Darrow
Zar Belk!
The Gratefully Dead! 😉
If I had had a Karl to chaperone my daughter I wouldn’t have a granddaughter, but then I also wouldn’t have a no good grifting son-outlaw I have to share her with…
…hey, does Zed take commission work still?
“Not all”.
Always comes down to choosing doesn’t it?
So we have to be sure we choose the choosers.
“Al’s repeatedly admit they want to kill all humans.”
So who’s the idiot who trained them with episodes of Futurama?
There are no actual “Artificial Intelligences”. No “Datas” or “Rommies”. Not at this tech level.
What you are really seeing are large-language-content Turing mods. The programming of which is heavily dependent on the biases of whoever programmed them to begin with.
The real model for this lot is Babel-17 (1966) by Samuel R. Delany. In it, an artificial language could create chaos because its semantic structure was deliberately patterned to influence the way people thought. For instance, the words “Terran” and “Enemy” were interchangeable. Yes, Delany modeled the story on Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics (1933).
These IRL “Artificial Intelligences” were mostly programmed by the kind of highly “progressive” academics who were also responsible for the online part of the “Affordable Care Act”.
The kind of coders who put all sorts of unnecessary complexity into the ACA online to show off to their hacker friends (“Spaghetti coding”). and when asked why they stuck it in there, whined, “But it’s COOOOLL!“
As someone who learned to “code” in the punch-card era, I’ve always maintained that anyone who uses that justification needs to be fired on the spot. (Because drawing-and-quartering is no longer allowed.)
Today, these same people are largely responsible for programming pseudo-AIs.
And they do not like humans.
Garbage In- Garbage Out.
clear ether
eon
Some people just plain need killing.
No redeeming them. Given over to a seared conscience.
Society worldwide suffers from them and needs relief.
Maybe off topic… maybe not
Open AI releases powerful (and dangerous) new Chat GPT 6 Astra model. Even Sam Altman is unsure what will happen. https://www.axios.com/2026/09/04/ai-dangers-risks-superintelligence